A Collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh

Montana high court dismisses same-sex marriage suit

The Montana Supreme Court [official website] on Monday affirmed [opinion, PDF] a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit seeking legal status for same-sex relationships. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] originally filed suit [JURIST report] in July 2010 on behalf of six same-sex couples alleging that state law prohibited them from benefiting from relationship and family protections and obligations automatically provided by law to different-sex couples who marry. In Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana [JURIST comment; JURIST op-ed] the plaintiffs sought legal recognition for same-sex couples despite a 2004 voter approved amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Montana's First Judicial District Court [official website] dismissed the suit [JURIST report] in April 2011. The ACLU appealed the decision [JURIST report], but on Monday the state's highest court affirmed the ruling, finding plaintiffs' claim overly broad:

It is the opinion of this Court that the broad injunction and declaratory judgment sought by Plaintiffs would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to this proceeding. Instead, a broad injunction and declaration not specifically directed at any particular statute would lead to confusion and further litigation. As the District Court aptly stated: "For this Court to direct the legislature to enact a law that would impact an unknown number of statutes would launch this Court into a roiling maelstrom of policy issues without a constitutional compass." ... Broadly determining the constitutionality of a "statutory scheme" that may, according to Plaintiffs, involve hundreds of separate statutes, is contrary to established jurisprudence ... [T]he Plaintiffs chose to pursue an overly broad request ... without developing a factual record in the District Court and without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege.
The court also suggested that plaintiffs file a new complaint challenging the constitutionality of specific laws and statutes, and plaintiffs have pledged to do so [AP report].

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] is a contentious issue across the US with several cases currently pending at both the state and federal level. The US Supreme Court in early-December granted certiorari [JURIST report] in two cases dealing with same-sex marriage, including challenges to the legality of a California referendum and the Defense of Marriage Act. Also in early Decemeber, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire certified the results of Referendum 74 [JURIST report] which legalized same-sex marriage in the state. In the same time frame, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a non-profit corporation in Nevada which opposes same-sex marriage, petitioned the US Supreme Court [JURIST report] to grant certiorari to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires Nevada to change its definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons. In November, the office of the Maryland Attorney General released an opinion [JURIST report] stating that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses, allowing Maryland to become the ninth US state to allow same sex marriage after Maine and Washington enacted similar measures [JURIST reports] in November.

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.